Topic 081 Draft Rebuttal Evidence Takanini Precinct JL 2 25 Feb 2016
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BEFORE THE AUCKLAND UNITARY PLAN INDEPENDENT HEARINGS PANEL IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 and the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 AND IN THE MATTER of TOPIC 081f Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical Areas) AND IN THE MATTER of the submissions and further submissions set out in the Parties and Issues Report STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF JOY MARTHA LA NAUZE ON BEHALF OF AUCKLAND COUNCIL 29 FEBRUARY 2016 1. SUMMARY 1.1. My name is Joy Martha LaNauze. I am providing planning rebuttal evidence in relation to Topic 081 Rezoning and Precincts (Geographical areas) (Topic 081) in relation to the Takanini precinct on behalf of the Auckland Council (the Council). 1.2. I have read the evidence prepared on behalf of the following submitters in relation to the Takanini precinct for Topic 081: (a) New Zealand Defence Force (submission 838-47); (b) Takanini Central Limited (submissions 4986-2, 4986-3 and 4986-4); (c) TONEA Properties (New Zealand) Limited (submissions 4885 and FS1180); (d) Transpower New Zealand Limited (submissions 3766-348, 3766-349, and 3766- 350); and (e) Wallace Group Limited (submission 4749-2). 1.3. Having read and considered that evidence, I remain of the opinion that the precinct provisions attached to my Evidence Report dated 2 February 2016 remain the most appropriate method for achieving the objectives of the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP), with the exception of the following amendments: (a) I agree with the proposal by Mr Smith and Mr Rae for TONEA Properties (New Zealand) Limited to amend the MU zone height in sub-precinct C to 18m ; and (b) I agree with the proposal by Mr Smith for TONEA Properties (New Zealand) Limited to provide for cinemas as a permitted activity in sub-precinct C; and (c) I agree in part with the evidence of Ms Baverstock for the New Zealand Defence Force to alter the provisions of the sub-precinct D to better reflect the objectives and policies from Section 5B.2.2.7.1.2. Papakura Military Camp and the rules contained in Part 16 of the Papakura District Plan in the objectives, policies, rules, development controls and assessment criteria. 2. INTRODUCTION 2.1. My name is Joy Martha LaNauze. I am providing planning rebuttal evidence in relation to Topic 081 on the Takanini precinct. I have the qualifications and experience set out in my Evidence Report dated 2 February 2016. 2.2. This Rebuttal Report has been prepared in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. 2.3. In preparing this Rebuttal Report I have read the evidence prepared on behalf of submitters to Topic 081 relating specifically to the Takanini precinct. This Rebuttal Report addresses various matters raised in that evidence. 3. SCOPE 3.1. The following five submitters have filed eight statements of evidence in relation to the Takanini precinct: (a) New Zealand Defence Force (submission point 838-47): (i) K Baverstock (planning). (b) Takanini Central Limited (submission points 4986-2, 4986-3 and 4986-4): (i) M Hallikeri (planning). Although, I note that Mr Hallikeri’s evidence at paragraph 4.4(i) refers to a statement of evidence of Garth Falconer for Takanini Central Limited for Topic 081 dated 10 February 2016 I have been unable to locate that evidence on the AUPIHP website. (c) TONEA Properties (New Zealand) Limited (submission number 4885 and FS1180): (i) B Hall (traffic); (ii) T Heath (retail economic); (iii) N Rae (urban design); and (iv) V Smith (planning). (d) Transpower New Zealand Limited (submission points 3766-348, 3766-349, and 3766-350): (i) S Allan (planning). (e) Wallace Group Limited (submission point 4749-2): (i) V Smith (planning). 3.2. I note that four of the five submitters who have provided evidence in respect of the Takanini precinct have also lodged evidence (in relation to submission points) seeking the rezoning of some of the land within the Takanini precinct. These submission points and evidence statements are considered in the joint statement of evidence of myself, Danni Maree Briggs, and Anna Fay Jennings dated 26 January 2016 for the rezoning part of Topic 081 in relation to Urban South. These four submitters seek as follows: (a) Takanini Central Limited (submission point 4986-1): that the northern part of 55 Takanini School Road in sub-precinct A be zoned Light Industry (LI) and the southern part of Takanini School Road be rezoned from Single House (SH) to Mixed Housing Suburban (MHS); (b) Wallace Group Limited (submission point 4769-1): to rationalise the zoning and site boundaries so that the entirety of 296 Porchester Road is zoned LI rather than a slither of southern part of the site being zoned SH in sub-precinct A; (c) TONEA Properties NZ Limited (submission point 4885-4): to rezone 30 Walters Road from Mixed Use (MU) to Town Centre (TC) in sub-precinct C; (d) New Zealand Defence Force (submission 838-46): the rezoning of the designated New Zealand Defence Force Land in the block of Walters and Grove Roads from SH to MU in the western part of sub-precinct E. 3.3. I wish to make a correction to my Evidence Report in relation to 137 Airfield Road in sub-precinct D. 3.4. In paragraph 12.26 of my Evidence Report, I supported the removal of 137 Airfield Road from Takanini sub-precinct D (as requested by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the Diocese of Auckland (submission point 5256-162)) and its rezoning to Special Purpose School zone. I now note that in Bruce Young’s rebuttal evidence on behalf of the Council for Topic 080 in relation to Special Purpose: School Zones, dated 26 January 2016, he does not support the rezoning of the site at 137 Airfield Road to Special Purpose: School zone because resource consent has not yet been granted for a school on the site. I consider that 137 Airfield Road land can however remain excluded from sub-precinct D. While it is part of the operative Glenora Structure Plan, which shows an indicative road between the site and the land to its west, rather than a precinct plan requirement for an indicative road being required, I consider that the recent subdivision layout of the land to the west of 137 Airfield Road provides for any consideration of links between the sites to be undertaken when 137 Airfield Road is developed. I now agree with Mr Young that this land should remain zoned MHS rather than Special Purpose School zone. 3.5. I address the matters raised in other parties’ evidence based on the overall precinct and also to the geographic sub-precinct areas to which they relate. 4. OVERALL PRECINCT /FRAMEWORK PLANS Matters raised in evidence – New Zealand Defence Force 4.1. Ms Baverstock, in her planning evidence on behalf of the New Zealand Defence Force (submission 838-47) at paragraphs 15 and 54, states that she supports the removal of reference to framework plans in the Takanini precinct provisions which I support in my Evidence Report. 5. TAKANINI SUB-PRECINCT A Matters raised in evidence 5.1. Mr Smith in his evidence for Wallace Group Limited seeks the modification of both Takanini precinct plans 1 and 2 to remove part of the indicative roads shown, as he considers that subdivision and the development of the first stage of a data centre at 296 Porchester Road have made it impractical to locate the north-south road in the location shown on the precinct plans. 5.2. M Hallikeri for Takanini Central Limited in paragraphs 16.6 16.7, 16.8, and 16.9 of evidence for Takanini Central Limited seeks the inclusion of provisions in Takanini Sub- precinct A to provide for residential activities ancillary to retail, ancillary retail, studio warehousing and office activities to achieve an overall mix of Mixed Use and Light Industry Activities to provide an effective transition zone between the residential activity to the south and heavy industrial activity to the north. Analysis Wallace Group Limited 5.3. I am aware that development of a data centre at 296 Porchester Road has occurred. 5.4. As I state in paragraph 12.7 of my Evidence Report, I do not consider that it is necessary to amend the landscape plan (precinct plan 2) given that Takanini precinct plan 1 is annotated with a note which advises that the exact alignment of reserves, roads etc will be determined at the time of subdivision. For the same reason, I do not consider it now necessary to amend Takanini precinct plan 1 either. 5.5. I consider that an indicative north-south road is still required in the precinct, so should remain on the precinct plans. I consider that it is important to retain indicative reserves, roads etc on greenfield precinct plans to guide the resource consent and subdivision processes which are the appropriate places to determine exactly where reserves, roads etc are required and can be constructed. 5.6. I note that Mr Duguid in his planning evidence on behalf of Auckland Council for Topic 080 – Precincts – General, dated 3 December 2015, states: 5.4 The precincts included in the PAUP vary considerably from one another. Some establish a framework for the development of large areas of greenfield or brownfield land (e.g. Flat Bush and New Lynn), while others are more activity or site-specific (e.g. Boat Building and Auckland Museum). The former are more likely to have a finite life within the PAUP, while the latter may be required well into the future.